KudoZ home » Latin to English » Law: Contract(s)

dies interpela pro homine

English translation: the day demands instead of the creditor/let the day demand in place of the creditor

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
Latin term or phrase:dies interpela pro homine
English translation:the day demands instead of the creditor/let the day demand in place of the creditor
Entered by: Adam Burman
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

12:01 Mar 11, 2007
Latin to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / Non-compliance of obligations
Latin term or phrase: dies interpela pro homine
This comes from a Spanish text and I need to know what the English equivalent would be. I know it is often ok to leave the Latin as is, but I do need to understand this term for later parts of the text.

Any suggestions
Adam Burman
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:14
the day demands instead of the creaditor
Explanation:



There are various references:
(1)

Firstly, when the date for the performance of an obligation is fixed, the maxim dies interpellat pro homine (the day interposes demand instead of a human being) applies and prescription will begin to run, even without formal demand, from the date fixed for performance (Ismail v Ismail17 and Nomis Perera v Masinghe18). This principle is embodied in the following passage of Voet's Pandects (22.1.26) (Gane's Translation):

http://webtest.cisworld.net/lawnet/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/19...

(2)
"Default in fact is that which arises without a demand, and thus is brought on by law without any act of a human being. Or it occurs when the very fact includes default in itself ...... Although no default is understood to take place where no claim is made, still you should know that demand is not made by a human being only, but that the law also and even a day makes demand instead of a human being, provided that a definite day has been attached to the obligation."

http://webtest.cisworld.net/lawnet/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/19...


(3)
No such doctrine exists in the Brazilian New Civil Code, in which the rule on the time for compliance is embodied in the old Roman dictum dies interpellat pro homine, i.e., where the contract states a given time for the obligation to be fulfilled, the mere lapse of such time is enough to characterize the breach. However, where the contract does not fix the time for the performance of the obligation, a notification to the party in delay is required to set the debtor officially in delay. Therefore, the solution provided by the Convention for the case of delay is not entirely unknown, although it goes beyond Brazilian law requirements and practices.



and...

Adam Burman: Hi Lydia - This is the translated section from where this appears:

Since the 1870 legislation, we have followed the Roman principle, dies interpela pro homine. That is, fixed-term obligations become enforceable at the end of the term, without the creditor having to approach the debtor, summoning him, either judicially or extrajudicially, to appear before a notary or witnesses in order for payment to be made.

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/1811546


The best one, however, is: the day demands instead of the creditor

http://olldownload.libertyfund.org/EBooks/Gaius_0533.pdf

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 mins (2007-03-11 12:20:03 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

page 270 (The book in the last link is in .pdf format and ~550 p.)
Selected response from:

Elena Petelos
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:14
Grading comment
Thank you very much - very helpful!
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
4 +2the day demands instead of the creaditor
Elena Petelos


Discussion entries: 2





  

Answers


17 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +2
dies interpela pro homine (interpellat)
the day demands instead of the creaditor


Explanation:



There are various references:
(1)

Firstly, when the date for the performance of an obligation is fixed, the maxim dies interpellat pro homine (the day interposes demand instead of a human being) applies and prescription will begin to run, even without formal demand, from the date fixed for performance (Ismail v Ismail17 and Nomis Perera v Masinghe18). This principle is embodied in the following passage of Voet's Pandects (22.1.26) (Gane's Translation):

http://webtest.cisworld.net/lawnet/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/19...

(2)
"Default in fact is that which arises without a demand, and thus is brought on by law without any act of a human being. Or it occurs when the very fact includes default in itself ...... Although no default is understood to take place where no claim is made, still you should know that demand is not made by a human being only, but that the law also and even a day makes demand instead of a human being, provided that a definite day has been attached to the obligation."

http://webtest.cisworld.net/lawnet/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/19...


(3)
No such doctrine exists in the Brazilian New Civil Code, in which the rule on the time for compliance is embodied in the old Roman dictum dies interpellat pro homine, i.e., where the contract states a given time for the obligation to be fulfilled, the mere lapse of such time is enough to characterize the breach. However, where the contract does not fix the time for the performance of the obligation, a notification to the party in delay is required to set the debtor officially in delay. Therefore, the solution provided by the Convention for the case of delay is not entirely unknown, although it goes beyond Brazilian law requirements and practices.



and...

Adam Burman: Hi Lydia - This is the translated section from where this appears:

Since the 1870 legislation, we have followed the Roman principle, dies interpela pro homine. That is, fixed-term obligations become enforceable at the end of the term, without the creditor having to approach the debtor, summoning him, either judicially or extrajudicially, to appear before a notary or witnesses in order for payment to be made.

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/1811546


The best one, however, is: the day demands instead of the creditor

http://olldownload.libertyfund.org/EBooks/Gaius_0533.pdf

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 mins (2007-03-11 12:20:03 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

page 270 (The book in the last link is in .pdf format and ~550 p.)

Elena Petelos
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:14
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in GreekGreek
PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
Thank you very much - very helpful!

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Joseph Brazauskas: I believe that your emendation 'interpellat' is correct, but your translation should reflect it. 'Let the day dun (or 'demand') in place of the creditor.'
7 hrs
  -> Quite right, and many thanks!

agree  BrigitteHilgner: A most thorough explanation, I dare say.
8 hrs
  -> Thank you! :)
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search